FINOLEX PIPES LTD Vs. SANDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by M/s. Finolex Pipes Limited against order of the District Forum, Bhatinda dated February 22,1996 whereby the appellant was directed to issue 100 shares and 25 debentures within one month and further to pay to the complainant interest on the sum of Rs.3,650/- at the rate of 18% per annum from September, 1990 till payment and damages to the tune of Rs.2,000/- and costs of litigation of Rs.1,000/-.

(2.) In brief, the complaint of Sandeep Singh complainant was deficiency on the part of the appellant-Company in not promptly sending the share certificates and debentures for which the complainant paid the call money as and when demanded. The complainant is resident of Bhatinda whereas the opposite party M/s. Finolex Pipes of Chinch wad, Pune which admittedly does not have any branch office at Bhatinda. The Company submitted reply to the complaint inter-alia taking up the plea that the complainant could not be treated as 'consumer' as defined under the Act. As per proceedings on the record, the complaint was dismissed for non-appearance of the complainant on March 6, 1995. At that time, Counsel for the opposite party was present and his presence was recorded in the order. Subsequently in the absence of Counsel for the opposite party, the complaint was ordered to be restored as at a later stage, counsel for the complainant had put in appearance and fresh notice was ordered to issue for Counsel for the opposite party. Subsequently, Counsel of the opposite party put in appearance and thereafter, opportunities of producing evidence were afforded to both the parties. Some evidence was produced by the complainant, however, Counsel for the opposite party felt satisfied on relying upon the pleas taken up in the written statement and no evidence was produced. Perusal of the impugned order indicates, as is also grouse of the appellant, that ex parte proceedings were conducted against the opposite party. Thus the entire written statement taking different pleas as briefly noticed above, were ignored from consideration. This is one of the grouses in the present appeal.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant has raised four points - firstly it is argued that the District Forum has wrongly mentioned in the impugned order that the opposite party was proceeded as ex-parte. Factually, the Counsel for the opposite party continued appearing in the case and had argued the case. The submission made by Counsel for the opposite party-appellant were not noticed. Secondly, it has been argued that no opportunity of producing evidence to opposite party was afforded and thirdly, it is argued that the complaint cannot be entertained by the District Forum as the complainant could not be treated as a consumer as laid down by the National Commission in Ram Narayan Parameshwaraiyer V/s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. and Ors., 1993 1 CPJ 3. Finally, it is argued that the District Forum, Bhatinda could not entertain the complaint as no cause of action had accrued at Bhatinda.